Again about a possible large or "double maiorina" of Rome in 350/351

Long time no ancient posting so with this thread I'd like to return to one of my earlier interests: the coinage of the Late Empire in general and of the 350s in particular.

After the new interpretations that seem to push the rebellion of Nepotian to 351 rather than 350 (according to Mr. Curtis Clay et al), I think that it is more likely that the new large denomination, that is so specific to the reign of Magnentius, might have originated in Rome around this period in 351, to be then moved to Trier for the regular large chi-rho type that we all know and love.

What am I basing this on?

The large modules of both Nepotian and Magnentius at Rome:


Nepotian from Kuenker 270 lot 8984 2015, at unknown diameter and 8.88g




Magnentius from "Via Agrippa" -- a French dealer -- 2015, at 25mm and 7.09g

The weight for both these specimens (and the diameter for the Magnentius) is off, about 50 to 100% heavier than the mean 4.5 to 5g usual for the maiorinae of 350-351, after Magnentius ousted Constans and before introducing the new "double maiorina."

So could these specimens be the precursors of the wide and heavy (many at about 6.5 to 10g) AE1s of Magnentius and Decentius coins from the West?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is a quality post that deserves a bump.

I don't really have any qualified opinion to contribute, but I have often wondered how Magnetius' and Decentius' coins fit into the Late Roman denomination system.

Mine is the lightweight issue:

Magnentius, Roman Empire, centenionalis, bronze, 350–353 AD, Trier mint. Obv: DN MAGNENTIVS PF AVG, draped and cuirassed bust of Maxentius right, A behind. Rev: GLORIA ROMANORVM, Rider on horseback spearing barbarian left. 22 mm, 5.13 g. Ref: RIC VIII, Trier 271 S. Ex Ken Dorney.

 

Mine weighs in at 7.2 grams - so slightly lighter than a double majorina but heavier than a typical majorina. Any thoughts on the exact denomination? I'm tempted to just call it an AE1.

Magnentius, A.D. 350-353

AE Majorina, 22mm, 7.2 grams, 6H

Trier mint

Obverse: IM CAE MAGNENTIVS AVG
Bare-headed, draped, and cuirassed bust right

Reverse: FELICITAS REIPVBLICAE
Magnentius standing slightly left, head left, Victory on globe in right hand, labarum in left; A in right field //TRS, crescent in exergue

Reference: RIC VIII Trier 264

 

Thank you so much for adding your own. I'd like for this thread to be an ongoing exploration on the earliest large AE1s of 351.

I am also fully aware that at this time there is no definite standard for either diameter nor weight in the AE coinage, but we have the different dimensions rather visibly separated, possibly in two different denominations. You can notice that by the difference in die size and weight between the AE1 and AE2 of Magnentius/Decentius "large chi-rho" type, that seems to have been carried over to the coinage under Poemenius before being completely discontinued, possibly in the autumn of 353.

Any more large Magnentius/Decentius specimens, Poemenius or instances of the different standards in weight and size between coins of the same type dating 351 to 353 is much welcome and appreciated.

Thank you!

 

At 22mm flan/die, I think it's safe to say that your coin is an AE2 with an overweight flan. A larger denomination is on two axes: die diameter and weight.

 

Mine is the lighter weight.

 

Here is a double of mine:


RI Poemenius in name of Constantius II summer 353 AE1-2 22mm 5.14g Maiorina-Double MaiorinaTrier XP RIC VIII Trier 332 R

 

In 350, before the accession of Decentius, Magnentius kept the 348-350 standard -- at Trier the FEL TEMP REPARATIO types were briefly continued and at Arles, Lyon and Trier the FELICITAS REIPVBLICE followed with the same standard. In Rome the coinage continued for Constantius II with the new GLORIA ROMANORVM type probably until mid 351. The rare issues at Aquileia are also of this type, which was also minted by Ales, Amiens, Trier and Lyon. When the VICTORIAE DD NN... made its entrance in 351 it soon became the new standard of Magnentius' regime before the "large chi-rho" type AE1 became the epitome of Magnentius' coinage and a denomination standard that would endure to about 366(?). Now this is just an extremely short and synthetic broad-brush version of an otherwise complex and full of local shades and peculiarities of these very transformative 3 years between 350 and return of the West under Constantius II in the autumn of 353.

PS -- here is a nice and rather scarce Magnentius GLORIA ROMANORVUM from the frontier city of Aquileia around early 351:



Notice the nimbed emperor on the reverse.

 

Did the listing comment on the doublestrike or countermark?

 

The countermark was mentioned but not discussed. The listing can be seen here: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2655587

 

Thanks a lot – that's very helpful and clarifying information!

 

Here is mine from Trier that seems lighter than any others I have found and oddly weighs in at half of @ancient coin hunter's example.

Felicitas Reipvblice
3.57g - 20/21mm

 

I am a bit stumped about the weight of my example. Thick flan, much thicker than usual for the period.

 

Here are two from Ambianum. The Magnentius is 20mm/4.65g

 

I don’t know if this has any consequence for the question in the OP, but looking at the flan of the Decentius, it looks like this kind of device in the middle has been used producing the flans:



I don’t see the traces of that on the Magnentius, though.

 

Hi, the Decentius spec is quite visibly Lyon rather than Amiens. The styles are so distinct between the two mints, presumably because Amiens was started as an offshoot of Trier and had no tradition as an independent mint with its own style.

 

Thank you!
I’ve apparently been lazy and believed in the sellers descritption here. Mint mark are different, so no doubt you are right.

 

I think anyone interested in the 350s coinage should read this article by Walter Holt on the "Revolt of Poemenius" and the coinage of Trier in 353: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43580368?read-now=1&seq=1